We are not in agreeagreement with your view onof our submission JSLK/ KETRACO/ IS/ 337. We are of the opinion that you have misunderstoodthere is a misunderstanding between our claim and variation of the contract. In ourOur submission, JSLK/ KETRACO/ IS/ 337, which is purely a claim and not a variation to the contract.

Please also note that even during the recommendation of the amendment, no one was sure about the quantities (refer PEC letter reference no: - KEN 2559 dated 22.10.2015), so by simply. Simply rejecting our claim, status, atas we are aware of the situation, is not acceptable.

In athe contract, we cannotcould not make any claim as well, as we were advised not to deviate from the existing contractual rates and items mentioned. There was no room to incorporate these extraadditional costs ininto the contract.
So, once again, we request that you to considerreconsider this claim.

Reply to your Query Item 4: Power comments noted.

Reply to your Query Item 5: What we have claimed is only to dismantlethe dismantling of the towers and we have not quoted for the transportation of the dismantled towers. You can verify our change orders.